Senators seek to remove final approval for Keystone XL pipeline from the State Department
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate on Thursday would give Congress the power to approve TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL pipeline project to link Canada's oil sands with refineries and ports in Texas.
The measure, sponsored by John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, and Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, would take approval of the more than 800,000-barrels-per-day pipeline out of the hands of the Obama administration.
White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters after the bill was introduced that the approval process for pipelines crossing international borders belongs with the State Department.
The $5.3 billion pipeline has become a symbol of oil- sands development for both its opponents and supporters. Environmentalists say it would open up access to the oil sands, which are carbon-intensive to produce.
The pipeline's proponents say the pipeline would bolster North American energy security and usher in thousands of new jobs, and pour capital into the economy.
The State Department this month issued an environmental assessment of the project that said it would not cause environmental harm. After the report is finalized, Obama is expected to make a final decision on Keystone, around August or later.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Judge orders nonprofit tax form release in case against IRS
- Senators approve Keystone pipeline
- Police in South Carolina: Family killed man in custody fight
- Rock pythons creep into Everglades
- Overhaul of military benefit programs sought
- Darmouth, in effort to quell ‘extreme behaviors,’ bans liquor on campus
- San Francisco blaze kills Mission District resident
- Poll shows giant gap between what public, scientists think
- Obama calls for government spending surge
- NASA pauses to honor its fallen
- Former Idaho National Guard soldier’s benefits claims yield indictment